#7 - After being subjected to clinical tests like those used

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (B)

Because the nonprescription herbal remedy was as effective in treating painful joints as the prescription drug, the manufacturer concluded that chemical agents are unnecessary for the successful treatment of painful joints. As with the majority of arguments whose conclusions we are asked to justify, there is a significant logical gap between the premises and the conclusion. In this instance, the idea of a "chemical agent" was first introduced in the conclusion, making the entire argument quite weak. To expedite the sorting of answer choices into contenders and losers, remember that the correct answer to a Justify the Conclusion question must address the rogue elements in the conclusion, if they exist. In short, the correct answer in this question must address the element of "chemical agent" and guarantee that the herbal remedy contains no such agents.

Answer choice (A): The increased likelihood of people switching from the prescription to the nonprescription medication does not prove that chemical agents are unnecessary for the treatment of painful joints. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Let's apply the Justify formula: the correct answer, when added to the premises, must prove the conclusion. Indeed, if the remedy contains no chemical agents and was found to be just as effective in treating painful joints as the prescription medication, then chemical agents are unnecessary for the treatment of painful joints.

Answer choice (C): It is irrelevant whether the people in the test of the prescription drug ever used the herbal remedy. This neither strengthens nor weakens the manufacturer's conclusion.

Answer choice (D): It is neither necessary not sufficient for the conclusion that the researchers who analyzed the results of the testing of the herbal remedy be the same as those who analyzed the results of the clinical testing of the prescription drug.

Answer choice (E): If the prescription drug fails to eliminate the cause of the condition, this might provide some support to the idea that the herbal remedy is a better bet. However, we have no information regarding whether the herbal remedy is any more effective in eliminating the cause of painful joints than the prescription medication. Furthermore, the manufacturer does not go so far as to suggest that the remedy is a more effective treatment of painful joints: she merely points out that such treatment requires no chemical agents to be effective. This answer choice is incorrect.

[Bubba]

Hello,

Although it is clear to me that answer choice B is the best answer, it is unclear that it justifies the conclusion (proves the conclusion 100%).

Conclusion: 'chemical agents are unnecessary for the successful treatment of painful joints.'
Answer B: 'The herbal remedy contains no chemical agents that are effective in treating painful joints.'

The relative clause in the answer choice insinuates that herbal remedies do indeed contain chemical agents even though they are not effective in treating painful joints. While the conclusion implies that all chemical agents are unnecessary, the answer choice implies that only chemical agents of a certain sort are unnecessary.

Perhaps this assumes too much however.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

Interesting thought, Bubba! Perhaps there are chemical agents present that, while not directly effective at treating joint pain, are still a necessary component of the herbal treatment? The herbal treatment wouldn't work unless they also had those chemical agents, perhaps stimulating or activating the herbs in some way, like a catalyst?

You're onto something there!

But then there are the section directions, which tell us to pick the best answer of the bunch, and B still stands head and shoulders above the rest, so we have to select it. And then there's the argument that if chemical agents are present and acting not directly but as a catalyst, then they are still effective in treating joint pain because they are contributing to the success of the herbal remedy. That is, they contribute to the effect. So maybe we aren't really onto something.

With enough thought and effort we can often poke holes in these arguments and make a case for why the right answer is less than perfect, and that is a fun intellectual exercise, but for the purposes of this test it is a misguided application of effort. As you said, "...it is clear to me that answer choice B is the best answer..." - and that should be the end of it as far as taking the test is concerned. The rest is great for a conversation over beers after the test is done and we are celebrating your resounding success!

[soupynoodles14]

Hello. It seems confusing to me as to why (D) is incorrect and (B) is correct. The question states: "The manufacturer of the herbal remedy cited the test results as proof that chemical agents are unnecessary for the successful treatment of painful joints."

It should be already stated fact/obvious that if the manufacturer advertised their product as chemical agent-free and therefore their product can't have any chemicals. Answer choice (B) is already stating what's in the stimulus, whereas (D) is stating that a cross-examination of the chemical prescription drug the manufacturer seems to criticize, and the manufacturer's chemical-free product, have the EXACT SAME benefit to the patient's pain issues. That strengthens the argument rather than being "irrelevant" to it, as the administrator says above. Sorry I know the LSAT clearly decided (B) was correct, I hope you folks can clear things up a little. Many thanks!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi soupynoodles14!

I can definitely try to provide clarity as to why answer choice (B) is correct and (D) incorrect.

You comment,

It should be already stated fact/obvious that if the manufacturer advertised their product as chemical agent-free and therefore their product can't have any chemicals. Answer choice (B) is already stating what's in the stimulus

I've reviewed the stimulus several times and haven't been able to find material to support this. There's a manufacturer of herbal remedies mentioned, but nothing mentioned about advertising, nor is anything mentioned more specifically about the manufacturer advertising claims about chemicals not being present in its products.

Answer choice (B) gets to what you suggest "should be already stated fact/obvious." Even if this seems obvious, that material isn't found in the stimulus. For example, it might not be obvious to a chemist that herbal implies non-chemical as the chemist might point out the chemical compositions of ingredients in herbal medicines. There's nothing in the stimulus that links the manufacturer's herbal remedy to being non-chemical, and answer choice (B) gets to this. It suggests:

Manufacturer's herbal remedy chemicals

Which can be rewritten as:

Manufacturer's herbal remedy chemicals

If this were true, it would be sufficient for the conclusion to be drawn. The conclusion is that the results of a given test are "proof that chemical agents are unnecessary for the successful treatment of painful joints." The test found a "nonprescription herbal remedy" to be as effective as "a certain prescription drug" in treating joint pain. But do test results about this "nonprescription herbal remedy" allow us to make conclusions also about chemicals? Is it the case that nonprescription herbal remedy chemicals ? The test results and the stimulus in general leave these questions unanswered, and "chemical agents" remains a new term only mentioned in the conclusion, but not before. Answer choice (B) bridges the gap of these unanswered questions, connecting the test results to chemicals.

Regarding answer (D), you mention,

(D) is stating that a cross-examination of the chemical prescription drug the manufacturer seems to criticize, and the manufacturer's chemical-free product, have the EXACT SAME benefit to the patient's pain issues. That strengthens the argument rather than being "irrelevant" to it, as the administrator says above

For the reasons above, there's no clear reference point in the stimulus for "chemical prescription drug," since the premises don't state anything about chemicals nor anything about their presence or non-presence within the clinical tests. Answer choice (D) states, "The researchers who analyzed the results of the clinical testing of the herbal remedy had also analyzed the results of the clinical testing of the prescription drug." If the same researchers (or different researchers) had analyzed the treatments for joint pain, it's not clear what necessary impact this would have on the results of the test. More to the point, that point doesn't seem to have any bearing on connecting the clinical test to the conclusion that the author makes about that clinical test, which brings in the new variable of chemicals. Thus, answer choice (D) doesn't clearly impact the conclusion at all. But even if it somehow strengthened the conclusion, that wouldn't be enough for it to be the correct answer, since this involves a justify the conclusion question stem.